Towards a kinder, gentler “three strikes” for file-sharers

Car analogies are about as helpful to digital copyright debates as jet fuel is …

"Three strikes" may be controversial when applied to Internet disconnections for copyright infringement, but I suspect broad agreement could be had on applying the principle to the dreaded "car analogy." Draw three infelicitious and inaccurate parallels between an automobile and a copyright question, and you lose the right to publicly make analogies for a year.

The Honourable John Robertson, a UK Member of Parliament who takes the lead on many communications issues there, earned his first strike last week when speaking at a major DC tech policy conference (watch the panel here).

Defending the UK's new Digital Economy bill, which contemplates penalties (including disconnection) for Internet accounts linked repeatedly with copyright infringement, Robertson explained why musicians were so outraged by having their work "stolen."

"If I was to borrow your car without telling you and drive it about... you might be kind of upset," he said.

The comment followed a rhetorical question about how there would be little live music to see if people continued to download songs for free—an implication that, no matter how much copyright infringement concerns you, should seem more than a bit odd. (Live music has been earning record revenues over the last few years.)

And yet, when the wreckage of Robertson's statements was cleared away like a totaled car from an accident scene, he made two terrific points about "graduated response" laws that are instructive for the US.

Both concern the penalties for infringement. First, the UK would reserve the right to disconnect repeat offenders, though this is really viewed as a last resort and would not result in an "Internet exile"—when users are cut off, they don't go on any Internet blacklist.

In the US, such disconnections could cause problems. John Morris of the Center for Democracy & Technology and Matt Schruers of the CCIA both sat on the panel and pointed out that US households often have few viable choices for broadband. In rural areas, there may be only a single option. Internet cutoffs could make it difficult to reestablish service with another provider, though there's always the backup of laggy satellite.

This prompted a smile from Robertson, who used the chance to knock US telecom policy. In the UK, where the last-mile local loop is unbundled and open to all competitors on reasonable terms, DSL competition is widespread. Yes, it's a hassle to switch, but that's exactly the point; it's a hassle, not an exile.

Second, repeat infringers could face the possibility of fines. Schruers and Morris also complained bitterly about the amounts possible in US federal copyright cases, which can reach $150,000 per song, and they pointed out that a federal judge in Minnesota has just lowered the damage award in the first such case to go to trial precisely because of its disproportionality.

In their view, the issue is better served with lawsuits that target an individual infringer, not the Internet access of an entire household. Indeed, as voice and video move increasingly onto the Web, such a disconnection could cut a home off from e-mail, phone calls, and TV.

Shira Perlmutter of global music trade group IFPI was aghast—the RIAA's widespread lawsuit campaign here in the US attracted vociferous criticism, and she rightly pointed that out. Don't critics want it both ways, bashing lawsuits and then calling for them?

But Schruers argued that lawsuits are in fact fine, so long as they result in reasonable damage awards. $1.92 million awards for sharing music can't possibly meet that standard.

Keep it secret

The focus on US policy was odd because legislative solutions to the issue aren't being proposed. ISPs can currently disconnect users on a voluntary basis, but none do so on a massive scale. That doesn't mean the issue isn't a live one, though, just that copyright holders are trying to break into the ISP automobile through the rear window instead of the front door.

Discussions on Internet disconnections are certainly taking place behind a cloak of near-total secrecy with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. ACTA is billed as an executive agreement, not a trade treaty, and as such will not need Congressional approval.

The RIAA and MPAA are moving outside the legislative system by going to the FCC as well, using the current net neutrality proceeding to ask that the FCC not just explicitly allow but actively "encourage" ISPs to start cooperating.

Given that the RIAA appears to have failed in its 14-month bid to sign up ISPs to its proposed "graduated response" program (none have publicly signed on), the industry has certainly not abandoned the idea. It wants government help, just not the kind that relies on legislative branch action where the noisy public might insert itself with more vehemence.

Common ground?

Unless you believe that copyright should be abolished, or that unauthorized P2P use should simply be legalized, the graduated response process makes some sense. It 1) does not expose user information to rightsholders, 2) does not ask ISPs to spy on their own users, and 3) avoids federal lawsuits. And if done correctly, it does impose penalties for mere allegations.

IFPI publicly supports the right for users to challenge their accusations before any penalty is imposed, but it rejects the idea that simply using toothless notices will have much effect. Some "bad thing" is needed at the end of the process. It certainly seems as though some compromise could be worked out if the industry were willing to drop its insistence on disconnection and would work for a Congressional change to copyright penalties. If a graduated response process ended with the option of a real judicial hearing and a maximum $2,500 total fine (but no disconnection), how many people would still object?

Years of support for maximal copyright penalties have in some ways boxed the copyright industries in, and we've seen little apparent willingness to craft smaller, more realistic penalties that don't send federal judge and Internet users into a rage. Such lesser punishments, while they seem to weaken copyright, might in fact strengthen it immeasurably.

"If I was to borrow your car without telling you and drive it about... you might be kind of upset,"

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

No two ways about it, no matter how you twist and turn it, internet disconnection is is absolutely no way proportionate to the issue of distributing music and movies. The internet has a great many uses far outweighing anything to do with the unauthorised distribution of music and movies where no profit by those concerned is involved.

"If I was to borrow your car without telling you and drive it about... you might be kind of upset,"

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

No two ways about it, no matter how you twist and turn it, internet disconnection is is absolutely no way proportionate to the issue of distributing music and movies. The internet has a great many uses far outweighing anything to do with the unauthorised distribution of music and movies where no profit by those concerned is involved.

Hiding behind technicalities and legal speak doesn't make it any more ok.

I love how people blatantly not pay for it and then defend and act like they are not doing anything wrong. If everyone had that logic and that mentality why would is there any reason to even sell CD's or downloads? I mean if its okay to get a free "copy" of it anyways.

Its even more infuriating when people seem to justify doing this purely because of hate for an organization.

Your not hurting the RIAA by illegally "copying" songs you never paid for. You hurt the artist who doesn't make that much off these sales as it is.

Also lets cover the "todays music is not worth paying for" example as well.People who say this need to evaluate their logic because if it was not worth anything why go through the effort to acquire it in the first place.

All of this is a kick in the teeth to people who actually pay for the music and contribute to the industry and not just freeload off a torrent site.

"If I was to borrow your car without telling you and drive it about... you might be kind of upset,"

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

No two ways about it, no matter how you twist and turn it, internet disconnection is is absolutely no way proportionate to the issue of distributing music and movies. The internet has a great many uses far outweighing anything to do with the unauthorised distribution of music and movies where no profit by those concerned is involved.

Hiding behind technicalities and legal speak doesn't make it any more ok.

I love how people blatantly not pay for it and then defend and act like they are not doing anything wrong. If everyone had that logic and that mentality why would is there any reason to even sell CD's or downloads? I mean if its okay to get a free "copy" of it anyways.

Its even more infuriating when people seem to justify doing this purely because of hate for an organization.

Your not hurting the RIAA by illegally "copying" songs you never paid for. You hurt the artist who doesn't make that much off these sales as it is.

Also lets cover the "todays music is not worth paying for" example as well.People who say this need to evaluate their logic because if it was not worth anything why go through the effort to acquire it in the first place.

All of this is a kick in the teeth to people who actually pay for the music and contribute to the industry and not just freeload off a torrent site.

LOL how bout u chill dood

I think copyright infringement is stealing, but nowhere near as harmful as stealing in the phsycial sense, this is in the digital sense. Nevertheless, it harms the profit line of the artists. However, the artists should now by now realize that labels are obsolete in todays world, in terms of their benefits are outweighted by what they suck out from the artists and the fans.

They are the outdated, burocratic middlemen, leeching off the wallets of the consumer and content rights of the artists.

"If I was to borrow your car without telling you and drive it about... you might be kind of upset,"

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

No two ways about it, no matter how you twist and turn it, internet disconnection is is absolutely no way proportionate to the issue of distributing music and movies. The internet has a great many uses far outweighing anything to do with the unauthorised distribution of music and movies where no profit by those concerned is involved.

Hiding behind technicalities and legal speak doesn't make it any more ok.

I love how people blatantly not pay for it and then defend and act like they are not doing anything wrong. If everyone had that logic and that mentality why would is there any reason to even sell CD's or downloads? I mean if its okay to get a free "copy" of it anyways.

Its even more infuriating when people seem to justify doing this purely because of hate for an organization.

Your not hurting the RIAA by illegally "copying" songs you never paid for. You hurt the artist who doesn't make that much off these sales as it is.

Also lets cover the "todays music is not worth paying for" example as well.People who say this need to evaluate their logic because if it was not worth anything why go through the effort to acquire it in the first place.

All of this is a kick in the teeth to people who actually pay for the music and contribute to the industry and not just freeload off a torrent site.

LOL how bout u chill dood

I think copyright infringement is stealing, but nowhere near as harmful as stealing in the phsycial sense, this is in the digital sense. Nevertheless, it harms the profit line of the artists. However, the artists should now by now realize that labels are obsolete in todays world, in terms of their benefits are outweighted by what they suck out from the artists and the fans.

They are the outdated, burocratic middlemen, leeching off the wallets of the consumer and content rights of the artists.

The problem with this is that is labels provide plenty of marketing and venues to the artist. A lot of unsigned artists have a hard time finding customers instead of customers seeking them they have to seek the customers. Sure they suck I know they do but currently they are the best way for an artist to be discovered by the masses.

This also goes back to my point of justifying this on hate of organizations.

Content rights? What content rights? Copyright is not a natural right; it is one that is allowed to exist in order to promote the creation of new works of art.

In the US copyright is explicitly in the domain of the Congress. Specifically congress has the power to: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis mine).

Congress is elected by the people to represent our desires/views/etc. Now realistically congress generally does what the majority of its members think "is best" for their electorate (or themselves for that matter); but the point stands that if only congress has the power to establish a copyright AND congress is supposed to act as the face of the people AND if the people have determined that the copyright (as currently exists) is not in their best interest THEN there should be no copyright OR the copyright should be amended to such a form that the people once again accept it.

Fact is the content creators are such a minority of the populace that they should be thanking the rest of us that we choose to buy anything at all and not demand a full revocation of copyright.

14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now? That gives the creator ample chance to obtain remuneration for their work AND long enough that new companies won't be able to swoop in and create a derivative work in order to ride the coattails of a popular work (think movie adaptations of popular books) without paying the creator according to some agreement. For my part I think removing the renewal would be for the best.

Society is done no benefit when new creative works will not be public domain for the next 200 YEARS.

Content rights? What content rights? Copyright is not a natural right; it is one that is allowed to exist in order to promote the creation of new works of art.

In the US copyright is explicitly in the domain of the Congress. Specifically congress has the power to: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis mine).

Congress is elected by the people to represent our desires/views/etc. Now realistically congress generally does what the majority of its members think "is best" for their electorate (or themselves for that matter); but the point stands that if only congress has the power to establish a copyright AND congress is supposed to act as the face of the people AND if the people have determined that the copyright (as currently exists) is not in their best interest THEN there should be no copyright OR the copyright should be amended to such a form that the people once again accept it.

Fact is the content creators are such a minority of the populace that they should be thanking the rest of us that we choose to buy anything at all and not demand a full revocation of copyright.

14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now? That gives the creator ample chance to obtain remuneration for their work AND long enough that new companies won't be able to swoop in and create a derivative work in order to ride the coattails of a popular work (think movie adaptations of popular books) without paying the creator according to some agreement. For my part I think removing the renewal would be for the best.

Society is done no benefit when new creative works will not be public domain for the next 200 YEARS.

I think that optional copyright renewal is a good idea. Why? Because it allows works that are still commercially viable come renewal time to remain under protection, whereas those works that aren't bringing the rights holders any money (because they don't sell, or because they're not commercially available, for for whatever reason) can fall into the public domain where they should be. This would go a long way towards solving the problem of orphan works (though significantly shorter copyright terms will do that on its own). In addition, such a renewal system would encourage a centralized registration system in which anyone could look up the owner of a copyright on a specific work. This would be a huge help with tracking down rights holders in order to ask for permission to use the work in some way. As I understand it, there is currently no such system, which amplifies the problem of orphaned works: you can't legally use it and there's no practical (or even possible) way to clear the rights to use it.

I'm not sure how long copyright terms should be in my opinion, but let's use your example of 14+14. Copyrights should expire after 14 years unless they're renewed for a fee and granted another 14 years of protection. The fee helps ensure that only those works that are still making money will have their terms renewed. Rights holders still get arguably adequate copyright protection, the public domain is massively enriched (since changes to copyright law would pretty much have to be retroactive, to undo the damage caused by the CTEA and other such extension), and everyone benefits in the end.

My other opinions about copyright law:-Get rid of DRM. Well, either outlaw DRM or repeal the DMCA and therefore make it legal to circumvent it. DRM provides everlasting copyright protections to creative works even after their copyrights expire. It is fundamentally anti-public domain If copyright law is not fixed by the time the first DRMd works start to hit the public domain (further assuming anything is falling into the public domain at all), I expect we'll see a lot of criticism.-Legalize noncommercial reproduction and distribution. I'm not going to bother justifying this because someone will come along and try to take the justifications apart in an attempt to argue that I'm somehow wrong in what I believe. (Edit: A little clarification for clarification's sake. I'm in favor of a copyright system that stops people from commercial infringement. I'm against a copyright system that punishes people for downloading and sharing copyrighted works in an utterly non-profit fashion.)-For crying out loud, don't allow copyright to be applied to things that aren't supposed to be copyrighted, such as building codes (these are laws, people, they should be public domain) and the Dewey Decimal System. Providing copyright protections to these sorts of things (oh, along with things like this, as well) does not in any way encourage the progress of the sciences and useful arts.

Originally posted by AdamM:Hiding behind technicalities and legal speak doesn't make it any more ok.

I love how people blatantly not pay for it and then defend and act like they are not doing anything wrong. If everyone had that logic and that mentality why would is there any reason to even sell CD's or downloads? I mean if its okay to get a free "copy" of it anyways.

I never said that taking music / movies for free was okay. My main contention is that disconnecting someone's internet access is not proportionate to the supposed "crime" which, in the eyes of the law, is a civil case and not a criminal one.

As I've mentioned in previous articles on this topic... we are quickly becoming very dependent on the internet as a society. Government offices are starting to allow (and sometimes require) online access. Many business are only accessible online.

Because of this, any talk of disconnecting people seems more and more insane as time goes on. These people are suggesting that people should be prevented form participating in all modern society, over a trivial (and CIVIL) offense.

Originally posted by ZippyDSMlee:Why not just make copy right humane and focus it on profiting and not copying/distribution for Christ sake.....

You are of course, only pretending that the pirating of copyrighted material has no impact on its profitability. The RIAA pretends every illegal copy represents a lost sale, and the pirates pretend every copy made has no economic impact. Both are full of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by darkowl:

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

Plenty of commonly held definitions of stealing don't specify deprivation—merely the unlawful taking without consent.

quote:

No two ways about it, no matter how you twist and turn it, internet disconnection is is absolutely no way proportionate to the issue of distributing music and movies.

No different than taking a license away from a repeat offense drunk driver whose actions have the potential to harm. Get him/her off the fucking road.

quote:

Originally posted by krimhorn:

14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now?

Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

AdamM:You hurt the artist who doesn't make that much off these sales as it is.

You can't say the artist makes peanuts from these sales and then in the same breath turn around and say it hurts them to not get those sales. The whole "it hurts artists" argument is predicated on artists making a worthwhile income on those sales.

quote:

ruddy wrote:Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

You dodged the point. How about you don't do that? Besides that, your argument is self defeating. Your Founding Fathers instituted the 14 years + 1 renewal system, which as it's much shorter than the human life span, is uncivilised according to you. As that law was permitted by the Constitution, this makes the Constitution itself uncivilised as a civilised constitution would hardly allow an uncivilised law to be passed so readily. Since the Constitution is the basis of your society, if it's uncivilised, your society can hardly be otherwise. As the current recognition of copyright exceeding the creator's life is therefore the product of said uncivilised society, then it too is uncivilised, unless you'd like to try arguing that an uncivilised society somehow found the wherewithal to be civilised on a matter so relatively trivial as copyright and little to nothing else. Alternatively you can admit you're full of shit and there's nothing uncivilised about a copyright term shorter than life.

Walt Disney is died in 1966 and they still want me to pay for Mickey Mouse. That money sure is not going to the artist, he's dead, duh! In my country, you get €90 for speeding. There is no way $2500 is fair for downloading music I can buy for $0.99. Nobody need a salary of $100 million/year to create entertainment. And copyright apply not only to entertainment but also to culture. Culture is for everybody, not just the select few who can pay for it. Let the people have culture and stop calling them thieves already. The artists should consider themselves happy when they make 2 time more money than doctors who spent 10 years learning how to save lives. So give us a break and find another job if you are not happy with yours.I'm all for paying the artists, but once they receive their check they should just shut the hell up and let us profit from our art. And the parasites in the middle should just go away or hide as much as possible so we don't notice them instead of crying so loudly about the $millions they didn't extort this year.So tired of hearing about the poor artists we see on tabloids abusing cocaïn on their yacht with naked 20 year old women.

Originally posted by ruddy:Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

No, there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize that these "intellectual investments and achievements" are so obviously indebted to the cultural fabric from which they emerged that they can only justly be seen as the produce of an entire society's collective creative activity. Short copyright terms were invented to encourage people to participate and recognize that ideas are properly a public good.

Your incivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality. Unfortunately such incivility has done much to corrupt the legislations meant to acknowledge it.

It seems to me the most pirated material is also the same material that makes the most money...

The MASSIVE investments in huge film productions, software, television and (admittedly much less investment) in music still results in multi-billion dollar profits, the more profitable a particular production is the more it is pirated.

While this balance is maintained, piracy is irrelevant to content creators and the public at large and is only a concern for middle men, lawyers and politicians.

Sure there will be some free-loaders but most people will pay for the content they enjoy (if they reasonably can) because they want to support it, and they want more of it.

I am tired of the self-righteous 'I pay' crowd, who can't see beyond black and white rules and the numbers in their bank accounts.... Feel good about supporting the works you enjoy, feel good that you enable more of what you like to be created in the future, and spend a lot less time worrying what other people are doing...

Originally posted by ruddy:Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

That's perverse logic. Copyright laws exist to enrich a politically-connected subset of the population by restricting the liberty of everyone. It's a corrupt arrangement.

Originally posted by AdamM:Hiding behind technicalities and legal speak doesn't make it any more ok.

It's not "technicalities and legal speak," it's at the very heart of the entire debate, and your stance here only serves to highly your complete ignorance of the issue. This has been covered, over and over again, all over the web and on this very site, so I can't say I really feel like going into the whole thing again. The summary though is that, at least in the United States, copyright exists solely and 100% completely for the public good. Period. It is an optional thing that Congress could decide to remove in a single pass if they felt like it. The Constitution merely allows IP, it does not enact it, it is not a fundamental right. If it becomes the view that it no longer benefits society, then it should be done away with.

Intellectual property is a fundamentally different thing, in numerous ways both theoretically and practically, from physical property.

quote:

I love how people blatantly not pay for it and then defend and act like they are not doing anything wrong.[...]Its even more infuriating when people seem to justify doing this purely because of hate for an organization.

Once again, you clearly have never bothered to research this issue at all, no doubt finding it intellectual easier to simply prop up a straw man that you can then knock down with no effort. I personally choose not to bootleg, as I'd rather not have anything to do with groups I dislike (and I truly hate the RIAA/MPAA/etc for harming my culture, helping to further corrupt the legal system, erode respect for the law, and set back the pace of technological innovation amongst other things). But I see nothing morally wrong with it, because Copyright is essentially a contract with the public as far as I'm concerned. In essence, the public agrees to give up the natural state of things (no protection for information or ideas) and grant a limited time semi-exclusive monopoly over certain acts with said information, in exchange for theoretically more production and sharing.

But now that copyright is effectively infinite (far, far above the original more sane 14 years), now that an ever expanding array of draconian provisions attacks actual purchasers, now that the IP holders refuse to innovate and actually offer their much of their IP in any timely modern fashion or, in many cases, at all, well I think that the contract has been effectively broken. And it's been broken on their side, not the Public's. So if someone feels like breaking copyright or breaking copyright related laws (for example, you are a criminal if you play a DVD you bought on Linux and live in the USA) then I have no problem with that.

quote:

Your not hurting the RIAA by illegally "copying" songs you never paid for. You hurt the artist who doesn't make that much off these sales as it is.

Given how some artists have described the typical schemes of the labels, wherein they are essentially put into endless debt such that they see very, very little, I think the "artist not making as much" point is at least somewhat suspect. But putting that to one side, let's completely accept what you said. In reply, so what? These days an artist has other options besides a major label. If they choose to work with evil anyway, then on their head be it. This stuff is not unknown, is not mysterious anymore, the information is there. Play with fire, get burned.

quote:

All of this is a kick in the teeth to people who actually pay for the music and contribute to the industry and not just freeload off a torrent site.

How? I buy books, music (non-RIAA), movies (non-MPAA), and all of my games (avoiding DRM). I don't feel insulted or personally attacked if others make a different choice from me in this corrupt system.

I will share your sense of outrage if the law is ever fixed to be once again just. In the mean time we must make do in a far less then ideal environment.

Originally posted by krimhorn:14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now?

Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes.

As others have said, here you go cowardly running away from his point. The current unfortunate state of affairs is a recent thing. What has been done can be undone.

But our lobbying efforts, donations to organizations that work towards more freedom, and our donations in both time and resources to technical means of evading the unjust laws aren't merely "likely to ever affect that reality," they are having an effect. I buy my media, and I donate money to the Tor project. I donate money to torrent sites, and to the EFF, and to other similar groups.

News flash ruddy: thanks to efforts like that, at a bare minimum the practical reality is much more how I'd like it, even if the legal reality is not. I'd prefer to just have sane copyright law that most of us could agree to respect. But if that's not possible, as second best I will take making copyright technically impossible to enforce.

If IP holders wish to prosper, they will have to compete. It's mind boggling really how stupid they've been about that, how it took Apple of all groups to even start pushing things in the right direction, but as we've always known and has always been obvious it's not at all hard to compete with bootlegs. Most have just been too stupid to attempt it outside of bribing politicians or in court.

Ahhh, it burns! This is why these proposals are so idiotic. This is basically legalizing the pre-settlement letters. Where else, or for what else in a modern country do you get legalized penalties for mere ALLEGATIONS! All to support a middleman business model.

Hypothetically, say they do start to fine people. How has that worked for them so far? It hasn't stopped people sharing music. It hasn't got people to buy more. They already can sue for tens of thousands of dollar per song already. They already have copyright, for all intents and purposes infinite for a persons lifetime. They have essentially killed the future of public domain. Their problem is so much deeper than file sharing, which is just a symptom of the overall problem, a failure of a business model. Fining people even more will not get people buying, only new business models will. You have to start thinking outside the box.

"If I was to borrow your car without telling you and drive it about... you might be kind of upset,"

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

Actually, there's a specific criminal offence in the UK for temporarily taking an automobile - Taken Without Consent. Theft requires *deprivation*, and it's not the same crime. People using the word simply muddy the debate.

Content rights? What content rights? Copyright is not a natural right; it is one that is allowed to exist in order to promote the creation of new works of art.

There is no such thing as a natural right. Do you think that the ocean is going to push a drowning man to shore, because he has a right to life? How can you have the right to freedom when freedom is something that constantly must be upheld, constantly fought for? And the pursuit of happiness? A joke. You can pursue happiness all you want from the solitary confinement cell, but that doesn't mean you'll get it./Heinlein

<quote> "Three strikes" may be controversial when applied to Internet disconnections for copyright infringement, but I suspect broad agreement could be had on applying the principle to the dreaded "car analogy." Draw three infelicitious and inaccurate parallels between an automobile and a copyright question, and you lose the right to publicly make analogies for a year. </quote>

So what happens when the computer in your car get's caught dl'ing the latest Lost torrent?

On a more serious note:

<quote> Unless you believe that copyright should be abolished, or that unauthorized P2P use should simply be legalized, the graduated response process makes some sense. It 1) does not expose user information to rightsholders, 2) does not ask ISPs to spy on their own users, and 3) avoids federal lawsuits. And if done correctly, it does impose penalties for mere allegations. </quote>

I for one do believe in the abolishment of current copyright regimes and want a non-extendable limit that makes sense for today's connected world. I is not reasonable to have copyright as life+X years. The life cycle of a song is approximately 12 years, and I would bet that it is the same or much shorter for other works, books, movies.

I thought you were going to go with a car analogy which would be appropriate - what if we made laws that said if your car gets 3 speeding or red light violations from speeding/red light cameras your license is immediately revoked and your car is impounded for a few months. This way based on accusations and flimsy "evidence" that never has to be reviewed non-technical people can lose their means of making a living.

I really hate it when people can't seem to understand that most artists do not own the rights to their music. When an artist signs up with a label, they own the rights to what the artists produces. The artist is only given a royalty based on the contract they signed, which can have clauses that allow the label to keep all royalties until the artist pays off the "loan" given to them by the label. Copyright has no impact on artists who are not consistently on the Top 40 list, because they simply don't own their own music. All this talk of copyright being a moral issue is just a ploy to make people sympathize with an industry that is quickly becoming obsolete. If the real artists are who people wish to give money to, the people will pay them accordingly. Otherwise its just an excuse by corporations for bypassing congress to pass wide ranging changes in the judicial system (ACTA and the FCC notices as referenced in this article).

Yes , people should be paid. But as it is now, the system is designed so that the artists are perpetually indebted to the labels.

Originally posted by ZippyDSMlee:Why not just make copy right humane and focus it on profiting and not copying/distribution for Christ sake.....

You are of course, only pretending that the pirating of copyrighted material has no impact on its profitability. The RIAA pretends every illegal copy represents a lost sale, and the pirates pretend every copy made has no economic impact. Both are full of shit.

quote:

Originally posted by darkowl:

Once again, stealing (depriving the owner), a criminal issue, is not copyright infringement (making a copy, whilst leaving the original intact) which is a civil issue.

Plenty of commonly held definitions of stealing don't specify deprivation—merely the unlawful taking without consent.

quote:

No two ways about it, no matter how you twist and turn it, internet disconnection is is absolutely no way proportionate to the issue of distributing music and movies.

No different than taking a license away from a repeat offense drunk driver whose actions have the potential to harm. Get him/her off the fucking road.

quote:

Originally posted by krimhorn:

14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now?

Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

So is 100+ year long or longer copy right...you have to split the difference with practically infinite copy right and the way copy right grants exclusive copy and distributional powers to the CP owners you are going to have to balance things to where the "bad" stuff is humanely marginalized.

Adding to fair use is one way to do it.

quote:

Copyright and all things within is partially incompatible with today.

With the focus on distribution and copying it basically means any poster of any picture,clip or copy of words/lyrics can be sued or have his comments removed from his site because thus system is policed by sometimes out of control business's who abuse a system no one really pays much attention to unless they have the time or money to fight corporate pettiness.

The trouble is some of CP is set in stone and fair use is begin whittled away to ensure your only option is to buy or re buy. CP can last 100-200 years this may be to long to really benefit society, so what can be done..... well looking at fair use its vague for a reason and that is to allow the times to set its standards on a case by case basis.This of course allows for to much wiggle room and possible abuse from companies bigger than governments.So what do you do, you can amend fair use and expand it with what I call "non commercial freedom of digital expression and disobedience" IE using any copyright as long as its distribution dose not draw any money from the market environment IE no donations and no ad revenue based advertisement, direct unlicensed sale is already illicit.

But we are not done here lets add another layer of protection for CP owners if you can show your CP'd items are being distributed by the millions similar to the numbers of he largest licensed digital store front then that site,public digital archive,file sever,ect goes beyond the scope of fair use.

Now for one last set of guidelines, hardware and software circumventions must prove that they do more than allow unprotected item's to be used on or only unlock the device or piece of software in question. IE for it to be fair use has to offer more features or allow you full access to the product you have purchased.

This emphasis's 2 things that circumvention has to do more for the item in question than remove protections and re emphasis's fair use on the web.

Gutting and overhauling copy right to ensure that "free" distribution sites dose not grow to the size of a business(large sites using X amount of bandwidth and having X amount CP'd items will be forced to either buy licenses or break the content apart and not link to each other) and protecting the modern consumer from abuse from above.

If you marginalize free distribution to what comes out of the site owner(s) pocket that the owner(s) may not even attempt to use unlicensed items to gain advertisement or donations it removes the profit focus from it, and when you look from this perspective torrent index sites are the same as hosting file sites as the end result is getting the file there go you can't draw money from the market environment and that you must pay for your own bandwidth.

When you focus on distribution with intent to sell more than mere distribution or copying you have so much more control over the whole thing.

OK, so maybe there is a reasonable way to make a three strikes law, but why? Copyright infringement is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Why do we need new laws here? I've never really seen any rationalization why in addition to fining someone for a ton of money we should also pull their internet connection.

Originally posted by Kani:OK, so maybe there is a reasonable way to make a three strikes law, but why? Copyright infringement is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Why do we need new laws here? I've never really seen any rationalization why in addition to fining someone for a ton of money we should also pull their internet connection.

Supposedly it's because those millions and millions of copyright infringing criminals are doing it regardless of the current laws. Therefore, new laws will be put in place! That'll show 'em...

Thats just crazy. Are record companies paying into goverment coffers so much money, that people are prepared to run happily to their cause without realising what they are saying. Mere allegations and you have a penalty system. Whats really crazy is that some idiots cant see the damage in this because they trust their ISP or record company to do no harm. Those people need to try and ring customer support for a day or two, as a penalty. Every two weeks.

14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now?

Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

Xoa (as always) has already addressed this, but let me address this fallacious assumption on your part. Regardless of what else any other "civilized society on the planet" (of which, I might add, you of course offer no proof), this is and should be a matter of intelligence. If you allow the lifetime of the author (and I do mean author--which is often no longer the copyright holder and thusly not the one to get paid) for a work on copyright, then what is the incentive for that person to produce anything more than one hit? Why would people feel sorry for those people up on "Where Are They Now?" if they were raking in thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for so long as they lived because they wrote one song 40 years ago that people liked? How does this in any way follow the stated intent and purpose of copyright laws in the Consti-fucking-tution of the United States of America as promoting the arts and new works in demand by the public? It's actually counterproductive to the purpose of copyright.

So, if this sounds "civilized" to you and proper, then I'd like to say that civilization by your rules is highly illogical and, in my opinion, even more highly corrupt. But then, logic was not shown as a strength in your overall post.

quote:

From the article:Shira Perlmutter of global music trade group IFPI was aghast—the RIAA's widespread lawsuit campaign here in the US attracted vociferous criticism, and she rightly pointed that out. Don't critics want it both ways, bashing lawsuits and then calling for them?

But Schruers argued that lawsuits are in fact fine, so long as they result in reasonable damage awards. $1.92 million awards for sharing music can't possibly meet that standard.

I do have to agree that I think the guys are talking out both sides of their mouths on this one. Theoretically--other than copyright reformation entirely--the only acceptable solution would be individual PINs that each person needed to use to log on to the Internet and only the infringing person's PIN would be disconnected for X amount of time after repeat offenses. But then, that can't work as people could just use their mom's/dad's/sister's/brother's/son's/daughter's/etc. PIN and continue infringing. So, really, there is no acceptable solution, according to the stated demands of the copyright holders. Thus, we need reformation. Extreme reformation.

On a final note, @xoa, welcome back! Perhaps we've been haunting different threads for the last several months, but I've missed your smile-inducing intellectual tirades against shills/trolls/ignorami on topics such as these. It sucks following you, though, as you have a way of dispelling lots of the ire I feel toward such morons by stating it first and better than I can.

14 years + 1 renewal. That was the original law and was good enough then, why is it not good enough now?

Because there isn't a civilized society on the planet that doesn't recognize the rights of an author to control their intellectual investments and achievements for at least the duration of their lifetimes. Your uncivility and rabid ideology isn't likely to ever affect that reality.

Xoa (as always) has already addressed this, but let me address this fallacious assumption on your part. Regardless of what else any other "civilized society on the planet" (of which, I might add, you of course offer no proof), this is and should be a matter of intelligence. If you allow the lifetime of the author (and I do mean author--which is often no longer the copyright holder and thusly not the one to get paid) for a work on copyright, then what is the incentive for that person to produce anything more than one hit? Why would people feel sorry for those people up on "Where Are They Now?" if they were raking in thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for so long as they lived because they wrote one song 40 years ago that people liked? How does this in any way follow the stated intent and purpose of copyright laws in the Consti-fucking-tution of the United States of America as promoting the arts and new works in demand by the public? It's actually counterproductive to the purpose of copyright.

So, if this sounds "civilized" to you and proper, then I'd like to say that civilization by your rules is highly illogical and, in my opinion, even more highly corrupt. But then, logic was not shown as a strength in your overall post.

quote:

From the article:Shira Perlmutter of global music trade group IFPI was aghast—the RIAA's widespread lawsuit campaign here in the US attracted vociferous criticism, and she rightly pointed that out. Don't critics want it both ways, bashing lawsuits and then calling for them?

But Schruers argued that lawsuits are in fact fine, so long as they result in reasonable damage awards. $1.92 million awards for sharing music can't possibly meet that standard.

I do have to agree that I think the guys are talking out both sides of their mouths on this one. Theoretically--other than copyright reformation entirely--the only acceptable solution would be individual PINs that each person needed to use to log on to the Internet and only the infringing person's PIN would be disconnected for X amount of time after repeat offenses. But then, that can't work as people could just use their mom's/dad's/sister's/brother's/son's/daughter's/etc. PIN and continue infringing. So, really, there is no acceptable solution, according to the stated demands of the copyright holders. Thus, we need reformation. Extreme reformation.

On a final note, @xoa, welcome back! Perhaps we've been haunting different threads for the last several months, but I've missed your smile-inducing intellectual tirades against shills/trolls/ignorami on topics such as these. It sucks following you, though, as you have a way of dispelling lots of the ire I feel toward such morons by stating it first and better than I can.

I think one of the biggest problems right now is the "copy" and "distribution" clauses in copy right, as anyone can break it and be in trouble in this modern age you have to reform it as so you can distribute all you want as long as you do not try and profit from it(no ads,no donations,no nothing) and you do not become as big as retail sites(bandwidth and file number limits, this is more a tacted on unfinished thought).

IMO copy right is meant to allow the IP creator(not organization, in fact I have a unfinished thought where CP can never be sold from its creator that they have exclusive profit right to it that they can sell in 1,5 and 10 year contracts) exclusive right to profit from their work in a limited time frame, this of cores is not what CP is today.... if you dial up fair use(http://bit.ly/auPaDp) and take some of the hot air out of the bloated and self righteous media industry it will be enough to get us by till we all can overhaul the inept(patents included) thing....

Ahhh, it burns! This is why these proposals are so idiotic. This is basically legalizing the pre-settlement letters. Where else, or for what else in a modern country do you get legalized penalties for mere ALLEGATIONS! All to support a middleman business model.

Hypothetically, say they do start to fine people. How has that worked for them so far? It hasn't stopped people sharing music. It hasn't got people to buy more. They already can sue for tens of thousands of dollar per song already. They already have copyright, for all intents and purposes infinite for a persons lifetime. They have essentially killed the future of public domain. Their problem is so much deeper than file sharing, which is just a symptom of the overall problem, a failure of a business model. Fining people even more will not get people buying, only new business models will. You have to start thinking outside the box.

I think, and this is just an assumption on my part but the only one that makes sense, they meant penalties for the accuser in the case of baseless allegations. I would certainly welcome such a clause.

The RIAA and MPAA are moving outside the legislative system by going to the FCC as well, using the current net neutrality proceeding to ask that the FCC not just explicitly allow but actively "encourage" ISPs to start cooperating.

Watch and see, as the proposed "neutral" regulations are turned on their ears and used as control mechanisms, instead. The result will be anything *but* a "neutral net," unfortunately. It's as good a reason as any to oppose such regulations.